Logic+Emotion explores the thinking and practice of building responsive & resilient brands in a connected world

Thursday, August 30, 2007

David L. Stallsmith recently joined us here in Chicago’s Critical Mass outpost. David most recently comes from digital shop Avenue A | Razorfish but has also been a co-owner of a small design consultancy and he’s a product of the Illinois Institute of Technology’s Institute of Design where he earned his Master of Design in Strategic Design Planning (Patrick Whitney’s program). David and I had a chance to catch up and thought it would be fun to do a Q+A here.

DA: Your background is in Strategic Design Planning. How would you describe what this is? DLS: The short answer is that strategic design planning tries to answer a basic question that every business asks: what should we make? In contrast, traditional design practice goes after a different question: how should we make it? -- with the "it" already having been defined. Design planning takes on challenges that are systemic and organizational in scale. Traditional design is about creating artifacts.

Another way to think about design planning is to look at how design has changed over the last 50 or so years. Historically, designers focused only on making things, and for most of the 20th century, gave form to products dreamed up by marketers or engineers. Designers relied on marketing folks for information they needed to create new things. This method worked until about the mid-1970s, when companies began offering customers more specialized, more technically complex goods. Companies learned they could be successful offering customers endless product choices and upgrades. But as designers tried to keep up using only marketing-based data, they found they kept missing the mark. Success in this new paradigm required a different type of input -- data that revealed customers' behaviors and motivations, not just opinions. So a few pioneering designers began turning to ethnography and other novel methods for understanding customers. These methods proved so powerful at uncovering customer needs that they gave rise to a new discipline -- design planning -- for systematically turning behavior-based insights into strategic business opportunities.

DA: You’ve worked at some interesting places like Doblin, VSA Partners, Avenue A | Razorfish and were co-owner of your own firm called Method Engine. What’s one significant skill or learning you picked up from each experience?DLS: At Doblin, I saw how Larry Keeley introduced design planning concepts to clients. He's a master at bringing planning to life and showing how powerful it can be. At VSA, I had a chance to work with some of the world's best brands just as they were figuring out what the Web was all about. Starting Method Engine taught me many things, mostly humility and patience. And Avenue A | Razorfish was the place where I fine-tuned many things I'd learned earlier.

DA: What do you think is the role of the designer in the broader fields of marketing and business in general? DLS: In most engagements, the designer serves as a proxy for the user. Good designers can empathize with customers -- understanding their problems and pains -- while holding a vision of how things could be made better. In this way, the designer serves as a liason between the capabilities the business has to offer and the opportunities represented by its customers' needs.

DA: What about innovation? Where do you see innovation coming from these days? Where do you think there needs to be more of it?DLS: So many people are talking about the flattening of the world. For the most part, they're referring to the effects of outsourcing on the U.S. economy. When it comes to innovation, the U.S. has held the title for generations. Today, innovation capabilities are emerging in every part of the world. This is bringing changes to the way we work -- breaking down barriers but also speeding up the pace of innovation.

DA: Do you think there is a common challenge that marketers, designers, and to a broader extent, businesspeople have in common? If so—what would you say that is? DLS: It's getting harder and harder to draw a distinction between those roles. As the rate of competition and innovation continues to quicken, people who can move between those worlds become more valued. I think having a clear understanding of customers' wants and needs is a invaluable trait in all three of those domains.

DA: What’s your favorite animal and why?DLS: I think ants are pretty fascinating. What better metaphor for working together to create the future? And I like cats too.

DA: What’s been the biggest success in your career so far?DLS: The one that comes to mind first is when I transitioned from working as a graphic designer. After grad school I suddenly found myself in completely different types of design conversations -- not about fonts and colors, but about innovation and change on a much larger scale.

DA: What would you consider to have been a "failure"? What did you learn from it?DLS: I can't think of any outright failures. Plenty of things didn't go as planned, but if you can learn from a bad situation, you've found a way to succeed.

DA: What’s your favorite thing about living in Chicago?DLS: I love how people here have turned architecture into a spectator sport. There are these three supertall skyscrapers going up right now within a few blocks of each other. It's great to have a front-row seat to watch it happen. That, and Lake Michigan beaches in summer are pretty hard to beat.

DA: Tell us one thing about yourself we might not have guessed.DLS: A friend of mine and I ran a DJ business in high school.

DA: If you had to give up all your digital devices but one—what would it be?DLS: It's a toss-up between my Panasonic plasma and my Mac. Losing either would be very, very bad.

DA: What advice would you give to aspiring planners?DLS: Try to experience design in multiple contexts, like marketing, branding, product development and research. Good planners think about the whole of user experience, since customers come to know about the stuff we make through a whole variety of channels and touchpoints. Those of us who can quickly shift contexts are better positioned to solve the tough planning and design problems. I think it's a great time to consider a planning career. Conferences like The Overlap are being organized just for those "misfits" who think about their careers as extending across traditional design and business boundaries. And schools like IIT's Institute of Design and Stanford's D-School are offering planning degrees that really mirror these trends.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

"as human centered design practitioners we talk about, well, putting humans at the center of the design process.
Which is all fine and dandy except that in the context of designing our ubiquitously connected and oh-so-smart future this roughly equates to understanding the sum of all human experiences, which is clearly impossible. The joy of aiming high and failing. Or not?

...the path to a good project can start with the simplest of questions.
Who are you? How can you prove it? What do you carry? Why did you do
that thing you did?"Jan Chipchase, Nokia

Sunday, August 26, 2007

Analog NetworksWhen I was a boy—I can remember how my Mother would spend a good part of her Sundays. She would take out her phonebook—a tattered collection of names and numbers written in handwriting you could barely read, and re-connect with her personal network—an intimate collection a family and friends. She didn't create media other than the pictures she took or the video my father shot on his 8mm video camera.

Digital Networks And The Increasing Number of Data StreamsFast forward 36 years. To the non-participant—Social Media seems like a dizzying array of communications, conversation, connections and technology that leaves them partially curious, partially intimidated and more than likely confused. To the active participants, there is no shortage of technologies, platforms and networks which promise to provide social experiences that connect with business contacts, friends and even brands.

In addition to this blog, I have active digital sources in place where I am producing multiple streams of output or data. Twitter, Slideshare, Linked In, and of course my Web site to name a few. I also have inactive sources such as mybloglog, Ning or Kaneva—these are sources of personal data which exist but are no longer being fed. And most recently I've recently added another lifestream—a fairly powerful one: Facebook.

But let's take a step back for a moment and think about a word I just used. Lifestream.

"What is a Lifestream? In it’s simplest form it’s a chronological
aggregated view of your life activities both online and offline. It is
only limited by the content and sources that you use to define it. Most people that create them choose a few sources
based on sites that track our activities such as Del.icio.us
(bookmarking), Last.fm (Music we listen to), Flickr (photos we take)
etc..."

Lifestreaming As A Basic Human DesireThe premise of Lifestreaming interests me primarily because it speaks to a basic human need. The need to make sense of our lives. The need to simplify the complex—and make it meaningful. I'm not interested in technology here—leave that to the true geeks. There are probably a variety of technical platforms to choose from. Steve Rubel has aggregated much of his "Lifestreams" on Steverubel.com. There are other kinds of examples. I think in some ways that Trevor, the infamous Mentos intern is also doing this by aggregating his multiple streams into one place. Heck, his video feed acts like a live stream—no prerecording there.

But here's what I find really interesting about Lifestreams. What the visual here shows is that our streams do have a source. Us. Network aside—it's the individual that produces a stream of data whether it be media, text or other. And what's becoming increasingly important is the array of multiple digital platforms that we use to create the streams. Most of the aforementioned platforms have some type of mobile support. Add advances in technology like the iPhone and the increasing pervasiveness of wireless digital networks and you've got the perfect storm. Soon, most participants will be looking for ways to make sense out of there multiple streams—not just the early adopters like Rubel.

Junctions + AggregationsThe irony of having multiple Data streams is that they don't have straight paths that go from point A to point B. As the visual shows, our Lifestreams intersect at junctions. Point in case, if you look around this blog you can see examples of several junctions. I've got my own Twitter feed streaming in along with the feeds from individuals in my network. Ive got a widget from Facebook that updates as soon as I update it—whether it be from mobile or PC. While my blog doesn't act as a full-fledged aggregator—it does highlight some of my junctions. Facebook's popularity is also due to this as it can consolidate some of the streams we produce. Rubel recently penned a post singing the praises of Tumblr as a simple and free option to aggregate multiple streams in once place. He wraps up his analysis by saying this:

"Aggregated Lifestreams could be the next big thing on the web,
particularly as community expands. I am also thinking about how this
might be coupled with services like social networks, Twittergram, Spock and OpenID."

I think I'm in agreement with Rubel on this. As a recent member to Facebook, I'm less inclined to see this particular network as more than a "community cluster" (more on that later). However, I'm more interested in how we'll attempt to manage our multiple Lifestreams as more of us move from passive bystanders to active participants—creators from consumers. Who knows? Maybe "Lifestream consultants" or better yet "Brandstream consultants" will become a lucrative new profession as the number of streams and junctions increase. You never know.

Friday, August 24, 2007

A little bit of Friday fun for those of you who can't decide which presidential hopeful you want to vote for. Vote for Pineapple instead. Full disclosure, Selection 07 isn't a real election—It's a spoof featured in local Albertsons stores, created by some of the folks here in our Chicago office. And yes, you can really vote for your favorite food item. Oh, and speaking of the Chicago office, I just came across this "making of" video. Apparently, it was all about the "Holy Shit" moment.

Sept. 19th The Promo Event (Chicago)Type: PanelDescription: Social Media: Evolution to ExecutionI'll be joining a panel including Rohit Bhargava, of Olgilvy PR and Noah Brier of Naked Communications. The panel will be moderated by Herb Sawyer of Carmichael Lynch.

October 24-25, Forrester's Consumer Forum (Chicago)It's unclear of I will be on a panel, but I'm working behind the scenes with folks from Critical Mass who are a Gold Sponsor of the two day event. Critical Mass has agreed to purchase 250 copies of The Age of Conversation, so if you are coming—you might be lucky enough to get one for free. If not, you can always purchase a copy for yourself (all proceeds of the book go to Children's Variety Charity). November 5-7 2007DUX 07 (Chicago)Not participating in this one, but really looking forward to it.

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

CM Comrade Scott Weisbrod points us to a Forrester report that proclaims the death of the traditional marketing funnel. OK, I buy that—the proliferation of interactive technologies had altered consumer behavior. The funnel may not be as relevant as it once was. The report suggests that engagement is becoming an increasingly important metric to measure:

"Engagement goes beyond reach and frequency to measure people’s real
feelings about brands. It starts with their own brand relationship and
continues as they extend that relationship to other customers. As a
customer’s participation with a brand deepens from site use and
purchases (involvement and interaction) to affinity and championing
(intimacy and influence), measuring and acting on engagement becomes
more critical to understanding customers’ intentions. The four parts of
engagement build on each other to make a holistic picture."

You can take a look at how they propose to measure engagement in four parts here.

But it's this visual above—the maze like funnel that I don't entirely get. I think it's supposed to show that unlike the traditional funnel, digital technologies have made what was once a linear path—well, less linear.

But what if it wasn't a path at all—nor a funnel that begins wide and ends narrow. What if consumer behavior is more like a spiral that begins with an interaction as opposed to a communication. And what if the spiral amplifies the more the consumer engages. From interaction, to engagement, to participation, to conversation to affinity to community? What would that look like?

Messing with the traditional funnel is like treading on sacred ground. But I don't think the "Spiral" is that far off. Think about it: Often times our first interaction with a brand is through a digital touch point like a site. Maybe we heard about it from a friend or somewhere else. We interact with it—we give it a try. If we like it—that leads to deeper levels of engagement. Maybe this repeats itself adding more "cycles" to the spiral. We continue to engage. Some of us even begin to participate. We transition from downloading to uploading our media. We talk about how great the experience is. To our peers, to each other. We become evangelists—the spiral actually expands as we engage with multiple touchpoints—not only the digital ones.

All of this adds up to a positive associations with whoever is responsible for providing the excellent experience. We come together with others who feel the same way. We instantly bond with them over our shared interests and experiences. Community forms. Then one day, someone who's never tried brand or service X hears about it from a friend. A member of some community. They fire up their digital device of choice and the interaction begins once again—a new spiral is formed.

This post came together rather quickly—so the marketing spiral could be way off. But I thought it would be worth a shot.

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

CM colleague Matthew Milan pointed me to this visual from Xplane's Dave Gray. It's a thought starter, that's for sure. The visual defines Generalists as being best at defining the problem or goal. Specialists are best at solving the problem or "executing the plan". There's probably a lot of truth to the stake that this visual puts in the ground. It certainly simplifies the differences between Specialist and Generalists.

One problem.

My view on creativity is that it's problem solving at the core. Innovation, design, communications, invention, all disciplines that depend on both the Generalist and Specialist mindsets working in concert to solve the problem. On the flip side—Specialists can also be quite good at defining the problem, especially if it falls within their area of expertise. Do you consider yourself to be a social media expert? Maybe your knowledge is more specialized than you think.

I think the reality lies somewhere in this: Generalists can excel at both defining and solving problems but may require the assistance of specialists as they go deeper into execution. Specialists can excel in defining the problem especially when it falls within their area of expertise. Are we saying the same thing? I think the difference is stressing that both can actually function in the other's "role" depending on the individual and context. And I definitely would expand effectiveness of Generalists in solving problems as opposed to just the definition of them.

Maybe it's the title if the visual. Change the "or" to "and" and you can look at this from another perspective.

A friend of mine who is a diabetic uses a pump to manage the condition. He's constantly checking his insulin levels and very conscious of the status of the pump. I thought of him when checking out Adaptive Path's vision for a better diabetes management device. AP has a put a good deal of effort into both the idea and the case study they've created out of it. But the real insights come in the comments section from their blog. Here are a few:

"Angel Matos Says: August 15th, 2007 at 12:41 amExcellent! I can only hope that one of the biggies in the ‘D’ world take your design concept and try to make it a reality. J&J via their One Touch division would be the most logical, or maybe Bayer - whose been marketing more aggressively as of date.

And in the name of the millions of D-Folks in the world, I salute you, I thank you, and may God Bless, cause we need THIS type of an electronic ‘toy’ -SOON!"

"Greg Says: August 15th, 2007 at 8:22 amGreat concept. Conceptually it takes the best parts of the Minimed pump/CGMS system, and the Omnipod, and combines them in a superior interface.

A few things to keep in mind, though — while improving the user experience is definitely an important and admirable goal, one of the reasons the current devices are so clunky is these medical devices have very different, and critical design requirements. Reliability and accuracy are absolutely THE most important goals. All the cool gee-wiz reassuring UI features in the world aren’t worth anything if they bring the system down."

"Timothy Says: August 16th, 2007 at 3:04 pmAs a pump-wearing Type I diabetic, I think this is a fantastic concept, and I hope to see something like this on the market in the future. However, there are clear limitations to the design in usability and safety. I’m personally uncomfortable with the controls for the device being physically separated from the device delivering the insulin."

"Kris Says: August 14th, 2007 at 6:24 pmGod bless you all for taking up this challenge! Thank you for your creativity and thank you for trying"

The case study offers some insights into AP's process including renderings of the interface and device. You can read up on the whole process and all the feedback here. It's clear that AP received some critiques as they shared the concept and how it came together. That's the risk you take when going public with an idea like this. But they took the risk and took on a huge challenge. That's what will ultimately "stick" with the folks who gave their time to express opinions in both comments and no doubt e-mail as well as in person. Something to think about. How often are we willing to take on the big challenges and put our ideas in the public? I'm with Kris. Thank you for trying.

Monday, August 20, 2007

Not everyone agrees on what design actually is--but we all know "moxie" when we see it. That's what Stanford grad student David Ngo and his partners in crime have. Moxie. David's video titled "Design Session 01" is both a little silly and actually quite informative, especially as you get toward the middle and the end. Why is David and his merry band of design students attempting to define design? Because despite design's rise in popularity and pervasiveness--it's still misunderstood or misrepresented, and the word design itself will forever carry baggage with it. Not to worry--the words "marketing" or "brand" also carry baggage--it's just how things are.

But as you get past the first minute of David's video, where he holds up individuals like Philippe Stark and Karim Rashid as examples of what the general public thinks of design, you have to wonder if design has become a victim of it's own success. Think Target, which has helped bring design into the mainstream. Everyday objects have been made both desirable and are obtainable. Design has become accessible. But the designers behind the designs, like Stark still have reputations as eccentric prima donna's. One step forward--two back?

Maybe, and maybe not. I like shopping at Target, but I like what David is doing here even more. It's not easy putting thoughts like this into a video format. The production quality isn't the best and David and friends aren't professional actors. But that's part of the appeal--it's a genuine effort and they had fun. You'll probably learn a thing or two watching the video. And that's not by accident--it's by design.

I've submitted a panel idea on behalf of Critical Mass for the upcoming SXSW conference taking place in March 2008. It's a panel concept based around my "Fuzzy Tail" POV. We thought it would be interesting to assemble a distinguished group of individuals from different types of professional service firms to mix it up on this topic. If the panel gets picked, and all goes as planned—we will have Jared Spool moderating a panel composed of myself, Dan Saffer of Adaptive Path and author of Designing for Interactions, as well as Collin Cole, SVP of Interactive for Frog Design. Who knows—maybe we'll add a fourth?

Here is the description:

"Times have changed. We can no longer afford to over-analyze our
challenges. We must try to get things launched -- learn and refine. We
must define ourselves and what we do more broadly. It's about going
from left brain to right brain and ending up on "light brain". We must
become "fuzzy."

Sunday, August 19, 2007

Sometimes innovation isn't the main course, it's the dessert. Harley-Davidson just came out with two new models, one of which is a unique soft tail design called the "Rocker". The big innovation on the bike went into the rear fender, which appears to "hover" over the over-sized rear wheel. It was a feat of engineering to accomplish this and the bike looks great. This particular model evokes a true "lone wolf" feel to it part of which is due to the appearance of the full rear fender which doesn't include a second seat. My guess is that part of the rationale behind the design was the influence of the custom-chopper craze (most choppers are one seaters) and like choppers, the Rocker is meant to be customized.

But Harley did a smart thing in the design process. The Rocker sports a "convertible seat design" which means this one seater rebel ride can be converted into a two seater in seconds. If I had to speculate, this design was possibly influenced by an insight into the modern Harley rider who's either a weekend warrior and needs an occasional spot for their significant other, or the rider who occasionally meets someone worthy enough to share a ride. I call this a "micro innovation" because it's not the main selling point of the bike--but as this video shows, it's one of the features that will probably get talked about, and more than likely get used. Not to mention that it's a great example of function that doesn't get in the way of form (or vice versa).

Friday, August 17, 2007

Atlantic City, located smack dab on New Jersey's coastline is a gold mine for ethnography. If you can filter out the sensory overload of sights sounds and the smells of fried everything, the people watching is fantastic. It's a essentially a bubbling stew of people, activity and human behavior--you can observe pretty much any type of situation from gambling to surfing to just about any form of street performance.

But my favorite part of the trip was walking along the famous (or infamous) Boardwalk at 6:30 in the morning. At this time the usually bustling Boardwalk is eerily quiet with the exeption of a few runners and local stragglers. The stillness was perfect for appreciating some of the more authentic establishments in Atlantic City. Hundreds of tiny storefronts still exist among the newer tourist traps and commercial chains and each time you take a look at one, it's as if you've entered a mini time warp as the signage and interiors look as if they haven't been updated in decades. In a world of change, it's refreshing to see that some things don't.

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

This is Buca (the name is short for Sambuca, an Italian after-dinner drink). She's a 10 year old Boxer. We got her as a puppy and at 6 years old we gave her to my sister who doesn't have children and provides Buca with an adventure-filled life complete with plenty of attention and exercise. They tell us that we are attracted to animals who exhibit personality traits that are similar to our own. I think if I were an an animal, I would probably be a Boxer.

Boxers in my opinion are a special kind of breed. Part clown, part protector, and a bundle of unbridled enthusiasm, Boxers were bred as both working + companion dogs vs. sporting dogs which means that while they can appreciate a good game of fetch, they basically don't care what they are doing as long as it's with you. Buca is the classic Boxer in this sense--she will follow you from room to room as you move around the house and she hates to be alone. If you want an independent pet who treats you with indifference, never get a Boxer. They bond espcially tight to their owners and want to be with them at all times.

Upon researching Boxers and dogs in general, I discovered that canines, more specifically working dogs can be classified in two groups. "sharp" and "dull". German Shepards are considered "sharp" which essentially means that when they are trained, their response time is nearly immediate--the time from thought to action happends in milliseconds. Working dogs by and large are considered to have high intelligence levels--whether it's guarding or herding, their "jobs" require certain competancies. "Dull" dogs, like their sharp counterparts are also very bright, but less reactive. They tend to take a little more time processing things before acting. You can see this in Boxers (Who are considered to be in the dull catagory). Their expressive eyes, head tilts, and wrinkled brows tell the story. They will sometimes pause and look at you as if to figure out what you are thinking. I swear, there are times when I can actually see Buca's little gears turning. "Dull" dogs are also responsive, but come at things a little differently.

You're probably wondering why I'm writing about this. I'm not really sure. One reason could be the gray hairs you can just make out on Buca's fawn and white coat. She's nearing the end of her life and though she doesn't act like it, probably won't live for too much longer. Boxers don't have a very long life expectancy--12 years is considered long by most accounts and Buca is already 10. But another thing about her which is also a classic Boxer trait is that she still acts like a puppy. At 10 years old, Buca will curl up her body and do a wiggly kind of dance whenever she sees you for the first time. Her little stub of a tail will vibrate so fast, it becomes a fuzzy blur. And she "growls" when happy. It's really something to see. She's a great dog--fun, awesome with kids and entertaining. While I do think I would be a Boxer if I were an animal, I also know that some of this is aspirational. Fact is, that while I pride myself on being spontaineous and fun loving, I'm probably a bit more serious than I used to be--a side effect to becoming a "professional". If I were really like a Boxer, I might process things for a bit, but not think twice about having a good roll in the grass when the opportunity presents itself. There is something to learn from this.

Well, I'm off to the beach. Maybe you can think about what animal you might be? What qualities about that animal draws you to this conclusion? Is any of it aspirational? And do you consider yourself "sharp" or "dull"?

Friday, August 10, 2007

I'm making my summer pilgrimage to my hometown (Long Island, NY)—where me and the family will hopefully take in some beach time, bond with the grandparents and meet up with some childhood friends. For those of you have been following this blog for a while—you know that I don't promise to either stop writing or continue, but every once in a while an "offbeat" vacation post will show up. No promises either way—I've always approached the content here from a "post as inspired" perspective.

Couple of things. I've made it easier to subscribe to Logic + Emotion in a way that best works for you. In addition to e-mail and the regular ways of getting the feed—I've added two buttons that make bookmarking and adding feeds really simple (talk about content distribution). And the bookmark feature has a mouse-over option which supports spaces like Digg, Stumbleupon Etc. The options (shown below) can be found on the left column of the blog.

Lastly, just for the heck of it. Below are a handful of my favorite visuals. Enjoy.

Thursday, August 09, 2007

Critical Mass will be sponsoring this year's Forrester Consumer Forum in Chicago and it should be interesting. Here's a snippet from how the two day event is billed:

"Fueled by cheap devices and pervasive access, individuals are
increasingly taking cues from one another rather than from institutions
— a phenomenon that creates chaos for traditional brands, sellers, and
media outlets. Evidence of this new social structure is everywhere; for
example, only 53% of consumers in 2006 believed that ads were a good
way to learn about new products, down from 78% in 2002. At the same
time, consumers are increasingly seeking each other out for information
— 31% of online consumers buy or sell products online from and to other
consumers, 26% contribute to discussion boards or submit product
ratings, and 11% publish their own blogs or personal journals."

We've got a few things planned which I'll be talking about more as we move closer to the the October date. In the meantime, feel free to subscribe to our Twitter feed. Starting today—I will be sending updates and links there that fit into the theme of "winning in a world transformed by social technologies", and when the event is in progress—I will be live-Twittering from my trusty Sidekick.

Hope to see you there—but if you can't make it in person, stay tuned...

Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Hat tip to Geno Church over at Brains on Fire, who has visualized the "Cycle of a fan" (above). I really like the fan analogy as I think it's both common sense and accurate. Mack Collier has used this metaphor as well. Here's how Geno lays it out:

"Every fan has a story. Are you a fan of a college football team, a
baseball team, a car, a restaurant, or a musician? Maybe it’s even an
auto mechanic. Some of us show more “fan” behavior than others. I fall
in the fan bucket. I want more out of the experience than just
satisfaction. And I want more from that business or that team than just
allowing me to make a purchase from them."

Point is that before you become an evangelist—you have to become a fan. In order to become a fan, you have to have had a great experience with a product or service. I'm not sure that you have to be a participant before becoming a fan (unless using something is also included in participation) but fans are more likely to convert into both evangelists and engage in community. Read the whole post. Good food for thought—and nice visual! :)

Be Someone’s Hero.
Everybody needs a hero. We just don’t want to admit it. Find someone
who needs a hero. Not your boss—but the person looking for guidance—a
word of encouragement or inspiration. Be that hero even if your own
heroes don’t exist for you.~Incomplete Manifesto

Sunday, August 05, 2007

So let’s say you are a planner. You’re probably looking up at the visual and thinking to yourself—"yup, I do a lot of that”. Or maybe you’re a designer (or design strategist) and you might be thinking the same thing. Or you could be a business analyst or brand strategist and think “yeah, I do that”. Maybe you are an interaction designer, writer, information architect or creative director and feeling the same way. Maybe you aren’t any of these.

Could it be that you are a human “synthesizer”?

I believe that the more options technology gives us—the more complexity, and potential—then the more important it becomes to hone in that core set of "truths" AND be able to articulate them to a diverse set of project influencers. The reality is that while many of us think we have this ability—few probably do it really well. But you know it when you see it, they are the ones who are able to cut right through the distractions—to the essence of the problem. But they don’t stop there, they are able to tell stories which move people to a point consensus or action—or just move them period. Synthesizers help take the inputs, distill them into something meaningful and articulate and output them in compelling, meaningful ways.

I believe that these soft skills are needed now more than ever because design, technology, business, brand and human needs have never been so intertwined before—so co-dependent. Like good designers and planners, synthesizers possess a healthy dose of empathy. But they can also look at things from a business perspective. Good synthesizers can be analytical—but operate enough on intuition to not over analyze. I wouldn’t be surprised if synthesizers tend to be fuzzy, T-shaped, or generalists—they would need to be able to go deep in certain areas, but also look at things holistically.

But one of the most important traits of a synthesizer is the ability to produce a set of “outputs” which moves insights from the abstract to the concrete. To put this in perspective, a good synthesizer crystallizes the problem which needs solving for—so the solution process can begin in an informed fashion vs. a more arbitrary approach. This is where competencies in design thinking, and storytelling become critical.

Synthesizer does not = job title.

Let’s be clear. Being a synthesizer doesn’t require you to trade in your job title. But, here’s the question I would pose. Does your organization see the need for this kind of skillset? Not only do I think it’s needed, but I think it may come not only from one person, but a group of people with complimentary strengths. And often times this kind of thinking can emerge from outside the areas where you would think they should reside.

If you think your organization can benefit from more synthesis—here are some ideas of what you can do to help foster more of it:

1. Identify who is doing it, where and if it’s working (regardless of title or dept) 2. Develop case studies and document how synthesis impacted the actual solution3. Figure out how your environment can be tweaked/adjusted to support more of it

Research without synthesis usually ends up being raw data—which is important, but data alone has never led to effective solutions, great work or innovation.

Saturday, August 04, 2007

Sean Scott just gave me a heads up on a project he worked on for Uber brand Harley-Davidson. The widget streams in video live from the famous Sturgis Rally among other kinds of content. It's a brilliant move as essentially what Harley-Davidson does is provide a glimpse into a parallel universe of Harley owners—the culture, community and mystique that goes along with the brand. Also, the option to watch live content or view pre-recorded stuff is pretty nice. Not to mention that anyone who thinks the Harley brand is cool and likes to ride will throw this up on their site or blog. It's content distribution—that's for sure. Brands need to get serious in this space—content distribution/dissemination is smart because it can go where the traffic and conversation is. And guess what? It's usually not your corporate site—especially if you've opted to go with the "flash orgasm/glorified brochureware" approach which offers no reason for a user to visit more than once. I'm also a big fan of the video actually covering an event vs. it being the contrived "viral effort". Harley owners who can't be there get to feel like they are still a part of it and those who aspire to own a Harley can ogle at the brand and lifestyle.

And what ironic timing. I'm not a Harley owner (I ride a Kawasaki W650, see below) and though not in Sturgis—I am out on the bike all day today riding from Chicago to Galena—a gorgeous part of Illinois, which that believe it or not has lots of hills. So to all my fellow riders out there—enjoy the Harley widget, and ride on.